Paul-s

Just to say thanks to all those who contributed positively to the discussion, and some really useful stuff in there, particularly the comments about the constant filming that goes on nowadays in venues and then ends up on line. I'm interested to know peoples thoughts about why a lot of punters nowadays feel the need to constantly film themselves dancing (many do that on an empty or full dance floor) and to curate their soul-fullness online: in a kind of "this is how you do it, or how it should be done way". For instance, If you do this, are you actually 'in the moment and music' or performing? Thanks Paul

Well done to all, very enjoyable watch and interesting stuff in there. Massive well done to Joan and all her dedicated hard work, a true soul indeed.

Is this message on a loop? What repeated insults, initially it referenced general themes not the member personally? Then the member decided to become personal: see below. "policing is exactly what your doing, any variation of "your" world of soul is obviously wrong. If t shirts get you in such a frenzy well qué Sera. But anyway my opinion about the t shirt brigade stand and if you don't like it I don't give one." I responded to that articulately and in detail and with some humour, then received a PM threat not a reply. It's really a strange state when people 'feeling's' are hurt by a response to their own insulting behaviour. But, as I said, its becoming par for the course with todays cancel culture ideology. I wasn't crying (or hiding behind moderators) when I was accused of policing or being in a frenzy (even though i find both terms very offensive). In this case, 'you' are deciding to interpret the conversation in a way that suits your sense of what is offensive and that can be a dangerous road for free speech and any interesting debate. Anyway, thats the 'state' of affairs here it seems, so fine, and noted.

Good move.... poetic if i might say so...

So, just the sharing on site of an abusive PM sent to me privately by someone i had not made reference to or abused? I have followed your guidelines and sent the member a responsive PM as that is what this rule encourages. A bizarre policy if I might say, but not something I'm averse to doing, as i am able to remember my childhood playground games. I wasn't aware of this policy and thank you for pointing it out. I wont share PMs again. Paul

Yes, but thats totally vague. I made NO DIRECT statement about any member? Can you please give the example as requested, otherwise its not really possible to see what you are talking about. It just comes across as arbitrary censorship based on projections not anything concrete.

Quite frankly the soul source team are ridiculous for issuing me with a warning (see below) for using threatening behaviour without giving an example. See below. All this cloak and danger censorship with no reference reeks of abuse and marginalisation of members based on partisanship. I was the one who was threatened in a PM. Before that I had made absolutely no reference to the said member. If I had then please post below and I will acknowledge my error? Impossible, because I did not do anything. Mike/Mal (whoever the chief censor is) you are totally out of order here and are suggesting that members can PM each other threats based on projected slights and egos is absurd. This post will probably get censored but hey I feel good because I did nothing at all that you can show? It's all a bit conceited and cloak and danger vague and goes quite well with the level of wider public censorship we are seeing with 'Cancel Culture'. Th irony is that we started the scene to escape wider censorship by the state and now you seem to echo that state censorial responses to nothing. 'disruptive' or 'offensive' = what? Its a bit open to interpretation fellas? I guess your advocating then that I send a direct response to the said member: no problem, but don't then give me another warning for doing so. Thanks. Paul

Quite frankly the soul source team are ridiculous for issuing me with a warning (see below) for using threatening behaviour without giving an example. See below. All this cloak and danger censorship with no reference reeks of abuse, personal opinion and marginalisation of members based on partisanship. I was the one who was threatened in a PM. Before that I had made absolutely no reference to the said member. If I had then please post below and I will acknowledge my error? Impossible, because I did not do anything. I do not even know them. Mike/Mal (whoever the chief censor is) you are totally out of order here and are suggesting that members can PM each other threats based on projected slights and egos is absurd. This post will probably get censored and me banned, but hey I feel good because I did nothing at all that you can show? It's all a bit conceited and cloak and danger vague and goes quite well with the level of wider public censorship we are seeing with 'Cancel Culture'. Th irony is that we started the scene to escape wider censorship by the state and now you seem to echo that state censorial responses to nothing. 'disruptive'. = what? Its a bit open to interpretation fellas? I guess your advocating then that I send a direct response to the said member: no problem, but don't then give me another warning for doing so. I have of course copied this message and can post on my site if you want to censor it. Thanks. Paul Note for member Our guidelines state ... Please do not post or upload anything that: Is inappropriate (abusive, offensive or disruptive) Your latest post which included repeated insults towards another member and the posting of a members personal message in public has been classed as both abusive and disruptive https://www.soul-source.co.uk/terms/ While welcome robust discussion on a wide range of soul related subjects we do not welcome abusive or disruptive posts concerning other members A warning has been given to ensure that you are aware that any further repeat may lead to further action on your account as per our Terms and conditions of use

That's kind of non-sensical Ken, the forum is an area of open debate and I have often been attacked on here and never felt it necessary to send PM's because I stand by what I say and can articulate my point of view (whether its right or wrong). Sending keyboard warrior threats (badly written) is totally infantile and not a challenge at all because I'm not ten years old in a school playground. The link to unwritten rules of yesteryear here is a bit tenuous mate. If you can't say it here regarding an open topic, then just be quiet.

A good perspective, thanks.

Mate, this is good stuff and my approval does not count. I am genuinely trying to get a broad idea of what was understood as a way of being. Mostly because it seems to be becoming lost from what i'm seeing.

Yes. thats what im talking about. You knew and you know...

🤣

But within that no rules scenario, there were implicit understandings and if you, for instance danced with a pint in your hand, things were said for instance. If you went up to a woman on the dance floor and danced with her, invaded her space etc.....

😂 Brilliant!

Thanks.......good points....

I have, due to some of the conversations on here, where i often some across a 'live and let live' or 'que sera' attitude, started to try to write down what i remember as the driving ethos, or unwritten rules of the scene. Perhaps rules is the wrong term, as it was stuff that was implicit, but anyway. Obviously, mine are based on my own experience and observations at a multitude of venues over the decades. So, is it possible to get some contributions (not que sera) that might outline a short retrospective manifesto (stuff that if you knew you knew) that the scene was initially built upon: particularly the space of allnighters, music, and dancing. They can be things that derive from a NO or a YES approach. I am trying to establish a base, a starting point, from which to look at what has changed or been forgotten, lost or re-imagined. I'll start off with a couple of badly worded attempts, but i really would like some input. Manifesto Music was the engine and newly discovered 60’s and 70’s 45’s were the fuel that kept it running. DJs were only celebrities if the music they played was recognised and danced to by the punters. There were no laurels to rest on. It was a part of the excitement to hear and dance to new 45's that were unknown to us. Thanks in advance. I am writing on this at the moment and welcome the views on this.....

Spot on....'costume drama re-enactment' full of acted out histrionics (teapots, hands on hearts, scrunched up faces indicating soul etc) to battered to death records. It's parody derived from a re-invented past. Because, it was not like that at all....I went to hear music I didn't know, we followed certain DJ's for certain tunes and longed to get on the dance floor to get into something new and exciting. Venues post-wigan unearthed incredible tunes and I never stopped longing for them. The music was exciting. If i have a 45 i love, i play it wisely and make sure i never batter its soul and reach by having it on repeat. The oldies night at Wigan has now become the week in week out night, on repeat, at many clubs and venues, and the parody fancy dress costume, soul on shirts instead of in hearts, and acting out, reminds me of a kind of 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' scenario.

Another individual who comes as never having been really on or 'in' the scene I have been on (takes all types) for and through the decades. If you were, you would get this debate. Your use of the word 'policing' with a dumb smiley emoji as the sum of your response just reeks of inadequacy in terms of any complex, informed, aware or soulful discussion. Also, you misuse the word frenzy....perhaps you misuse the word 'Northern Soul too, i wouldn't be surprised. I don't' have a world of soul, that would indicate that it stopped evolving and that i stopped listening and developing, I think you may have your own 'small' world of soul though, judging by the lack lustre comments. The qué Sera. comment exposes you for who you are and what your contribution signifies. The Northern Soul scene was never built on a qué Sera attitude. If you think it was, you were never in it. Finally, I guess you pulled that final thumb out from where its been stuck for decades, or have i misread that....

I just get sick of the flaccid, hackneyed 'live and let live' rhetoric. Its as lazy as teaching NS dancing online whilst wearing a T-shirt that announces you as the soulful product that is 'Northern Soul', and the reason the essence of many vernacular dance forms get hijacked and sold down the swanny only to become lost in reification by charlatans, and finally accepted as the 'real thing'. The actual visual memory of the 'real thing' finally erased. The scene was never live and let live, only amongst the true souls. Divs were always tolerated, but also mocked for what they were, tourists. BUT, they were never celebrated and proclaimed as authentic. 'Policed' is also a hackneyed word used to try to shut of any considered thought or discussion....like 'conspiracy theorist' (not differing opinion), 'anti-vax' (not pro-choice), misinformation , disinformation etc. All designed to silence debate. Also, Jesus has nothing to do with it, though i suspect many rush of to church that day after: but not in the way Clayton did (thats perhaps a bad analogy and not meant to suggest anything untoward).

Brilliant! 🤣

I don't ever remember these existing in the 70-90's ? Am i mistaken? But nowadays i see them in online films of events all the time: along with beer towels and Baggy trousers, non of which were ever really on the scene for very long and not all took to them either. I just watched a snippet of the Blackpool Casino anniversary event and it was awash with this kind of "wear it on your sleeve (or back, front , side)" signalling. Personally, i find it embarrassing to see and wear my soul on the inside. Is it some clever person making a decent buck? Interested in your thoughts on this?

Spot on!

Exactly. "Would you listen to an episode of Top of The Pops from 1978 every week? No you wouldn't so why do it with soul records?" Great analogy. Not only that, they dance the same routine every week, like 'Pans People' acting out a childish narrative with empty motifs/gestures: that now litter the internet as if this is authentic Northern Soul dancing, and in fact proclaiming that it is. It's beyond a parody and involves no digging, no listening and no commitment. The scene that they re-enact (as if it never moved on musically) was never static musically. I went each week, through the decades, to hear what was breaking and always did. Thats what made it exciting. Nowadays, its just generally unadventurous, uninspired and constantly murdering tunes through hammering them to death: when many were already hammered to death!

A low profile..are you joking. He is a total opportunist and actively seeks out projects and often fibs to get onboard. He contacts anywhere that mentions Wigan Casino and bans films from using a mock up of the original sign amongst other grasping acts. I know believe me. He re-invents what he actually did, and is a shameless self-promoter. I disagree about the scene and other venues. I travelled every week to several events, couple of nighters and a dayer for instance and its usually only the tribe that didn't need to travel who have no idea about these brilliant places. The scene was great and it wasn't only due to Wigan Casino. No one owes him a debt of graspitude, if not for him it would still have manifested in some way. Remember there were venues that came before, and soulful energy looking for a home. It didn't start or end with the Casino: thats just the myth that returnees, Russ and lazy producers want to promote... They need to reify the scene via that venue in order to cash in....its a recognisable product/motif and even more so nowadays as the same songs are hammered week in week out, the vests and bags revived and the songs acted out to demonstrate. "I was there". Anyway, thats our differing opinions and experiences and thats what the scene was and is about (so it should be). Its just that the lens that is always used in the mono-Winstanley-Wigan Casino experience and contribution: often deliberately, and petulantly, neglecting Richards contribution.